Dear Elodie
Thanks for your postings. I hope you don't mind my making some more comments.
> - *sea_surface_wave_significant_height*
> The already existing definition is "Height is the vertical distance
> above the surface." We believe that this definition defines the
> "sea_surface_wave_height" p
+1
> On May 3, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Jonathan Gregory
> wrote:
>
> Dear Dave
>
> I see, thanks. That makes sense. However, if you don't need to make such
> distinctions yet, you could just have "in_river" for the moment, which may be
> better because it's simpler. Later on, if needed, you could pr
Dear Dave
I see, thanks. That makes sense. However, if you don't need to make such
distinctions yet, you could just have "in_river" for the moment, which may be
better because it's simpler. Later on, if needed, you could propose further
standard names with more qualifications. It's fine to provide
I actually suggested ‘in river channel’ to rich because of the potential to
segregate into flow in fluvial sediments below the channel or in a floodplain
disconnected from the channel, etc.
Cheers!
- Dave
> On May 3, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Jonathan Gregory
> wrote:
>
> Dear Rich
>
>> How about
Dear Rich
> How about a new standard_name called:
>
> "water_volume_transport_in_river_channel"
>
> with canonical units "m3/s" ?
That's certainly a reasonable quantity to give a name too. Is "channel"
necessary?
Best wishes
Jonathan
___
CF-metadata
Hi all,
Thanks for your feedback Roy.
Here are the definitions we suggest for the 7 new parameters. They are
the usual definitions in the observations world.
- *sea_surface_wave_significant_height*
The already existing definition is "Height is the vertical distance
above the surface." We believe
Dear Elodie,
Many thanks. I totally agree with your revised proposal for seven new Standard
Names. I also congratulate you for the clarity of your proposals.
The next stage would be for you to provide revised definitions for these seven.
I will also do my best to provide my comments to you fo
Hello Roy and all,
I think you are right Roy, let's look at height variables first to keep
things manageable.
I'm sorry it took me a little while to reply, I wanted to first discuss
things with Marta and wave modellers from Copernicus.
We agree that the estimator should be included in a long_name
